International Journal of Engineering & Technology IJET-IJENS Vol: 11 No: 01
Experimental and Analytical Investigation of Flexural Behavior of
Reinforced Concrete Beam
I. Saifullah1*, M. Nasir-uz-zaman2, S.M.K. Uddin3, M.A. Hossain4 and M.H. Rashid5
1,3,4,5
Department of Civil Engineering, Khulna University of Engineering & Technology (KUET),
Khulna-9203, Bangladesh, email: saifullah0201113@yahoo.com*
2, Undergraduate student, Department of Civil Engineering, Khulna University of Engineering &
Technology (KUET), Khulna-9203, Bangladesh.
Abstract - Experimental based analysis has been
widely used as a means to find out the response of
individual elements of structure. To study these
components finite element analyses are now widely
used & become the choice of modern engineering
tools for the researcher. In the present study,
destructive test on simply supported beam was
performed in the laboratory & load-deflection data
of that under-reinforced concrete beams was
recorded. After that finite element analysis was
carried out by ANSYS, SAS 2005 by using the same
material properties. Finally results from both the
computer modeling and experimental data were
compared. From this comparison it was found that
computer based modeling is can be an excellent
alternative of destructive laboratory test with an
acceptable variation of results. In addition, an
analytical investigation was carried out for a beam
with ANSYS, SAS 2005 with different
reinforcement ratio (under, balanced, over). The
observation was mainly focused on reinforced
concrete beam behavior at different points of interest
which were then tabulated and compared. From
these observation it shows that 1st cracking location
is 0.43L ~ 0.45L from the support. Maximum load
carrying capacity at 1st cracking was observed for
over reinforced beam but on the other it was the
balanced condition beam at ultimate load. Maximum
deflection at failure was also observed for the beam
that balanced reinforced.
Keywords: Nonlinear Behavior of Concrete and
Steel, 1st Cracking, FEA, MacGregor Model
I. INTRODUCTION
Concrete structural components exist in buildings and
bridges in different forms. Understanding the
response of these components during loading is
crucial to the development of an overall efficient and
safe structure. Different methods have been utilized
to study the response of structural components.
Experimental based testing has been widely used as a
means to analyze individual elements and the effects
of concrete strength under loading. While this is a
method that produces real life response, it is
extremely time consuming and the use of materials
                                                             118101-4747 IJET-IJENS © February 2011 IJENS
188
can be quite costly. The use of finite element analysis to
study these components has also been used. In recent years,
however, the use of finite element analysis has increased
due to progressing knowledge and capabilities of computer
software and hardware. It has now become the choice
method to analyze concrete structural components. The use
of computer software to model these elements is much
faster, and extremely cost-effective.
The use of FEA has been the preferred method to study the
behavior of concrete (for economic reasons). Anthony J.
Wolanski, B.S. (2004), studied “Flexural Behavior of
Reinforced and Prestressed Concrete Beams Using Finite
Element Analysis” . This simulation work contains areas
of study such as Behavior at First Cracking, Behavior at
Initial Cracking, Behavior beyond First Cracking, Behavior
of Reinforcement Yielding and Beyond, Strength Limit
State, Load-Deformation Response of control beam and
Application of Effective Prestress, Self-Weight, Zero
Deflection, Decompression, Initial Cracking, Secondary
Linear Region, Behavior of Steel Yielding and Beyond,
Flexural Limit State of prestressed concrete beam .
Shing and Tanabe (2001) also put together a collection of
papers dealing with inelastic behavior of reinforced concrete
structures under seismic loads. The monograph contains
contributions that outline applications of the finite element
method for studying post-peak cyclic behavior and ductility
of reinforced concrete columns, the analysis of reinforced
concrete components in bridge seismic design, the analysis
of reinforced concrete beam-column bridge connections,
and the modeling of the shear behavior of reinforced
concrete bridge structures .
Kachlakev, Miller, Yim, Chansawat, Potisuk (2001), studied
“Finite Element Modeling of Reinforced Concrete
Structures Strengthened with FRP Laminates” with ANSYS
and the objectives of this simulation was examine the
structural behavior of Horsetail Creek Bridge(This historic
Bridge, built in 1914, is in use on the Historic Columbia
River Highway east of Portland, Oregon, U.S.A), with and
without FRP laminates; and establish a methodology for
applying computer modeling to reinforced concrete beams
and bridges strengthened with FRP laminates .
The objective of this paper was to investigate and evaluate
the use of the finite element method for the analysis of
reinforced concrete beams. Firstly, literature review was
conducted to evaluate previous experimental and analytical
IJENS
 International Journal of Engineering & Technology IJET-IJENS Vol: 11 No: 01 189

procedures related to reinforced concrete

components. Secondly, a calibration model using a
commercial finite element analysis package (ANSYS,
SAS 2005) was set up and evaluated using laboratory Table 2. Mild steel test data
data. A mild-steel reinforced concrete beam with Yield Ultimate
flexural reinforcement was analyzed to failure and Sp. Area, Average
2 Strength Strength
compared to experimental results to calibrate the No. (in.²) area, (in. )
(psi) (psi)
parameters in ANSYS, SAS 2005 for later analyses.
1 0.1196 40,441 66464
The observation was focused on reinforced concrete
beam behavior at first cracking, behavior beyond first 2 0.1183 0.12 40,253 66464
cracking, behavior of reinforcement yielding and 3 0.1187 43,806 66464
beyond, strength limit state, load-deformation
response, and crack pattern. Discussion of the results
obtained for the calibration model is also provided.
At last, an analytical investigation was carried out
for a beam with ANSYS, SAS 2005 at different
reinforcement ratio (under, balanced, over) and
observation was focused on the same as before also
comparison of first cracking load, ultimate load,
work-done in linear and nonlinear region, and load-
deflection nature between these different
reinforcement ratio of the analytical beam.

II. METHODOLOGY

A. For experimental and analytical

investigation
• Experimental
 Mix design of concrete for desired
strength
 Casting of beams with same
proportion as concrete cylinder
 Test of concrete cylinder at 7 days
and 28 days
 Test of mild steel
 Test of beam at 28-days
• Analytical
 Graphical User Interface (GUI)
method with ANSYS
 Modeling, Meshing, Solution
control, Loading, Solution, General
post-processing, Time history post-
processing
• Comparison between analytical and
experimental results and finally with manual
calculation
Figure 1.Uniaxial Stress-Strain Curve (Laboratory test)
i) Experimental

Table 1. Compressive Strength of Concrete Cylinder Figure 2.Typical details for test beam.
(28 days)
Average
Sl. Dia, Load Strength
Strength
No. (in). ( lb) (psi)
(psi)
1 6 115627 4421
2 6 115627 4421 4480
3 6 120317 4598

                                                                          118101-4747 IJET-IJENS © February 2011 IJENS I J E N S 

 International Journal of Engineering & Technology IJET-IJENS Vol: 11 No: 01 190

Table 3. Beam test data (28 days)

Cross section of all test beams were 4.5 in. 6 in. and
length of 1st, 2nd, & 3rd beams were 46.75 in., 46.59 in, &
46.25 in. respectively.
load Avg. Avg.
Sp. at 1st Ultimate Deflection Deflection
No. crack load (lb) (1st crack) (Ultimate)
(lb) (in.) (in.)

1 2362 4687 0.0963 0.2596

Figure 3.Loading and Supports for the Beam (Laboratory 2 3193 4340 0.1094 0.2087
test)
3 2633 5250 0.065 0.2402

ii) Analytical

Table 4. Element Types for Working Model

Material Type ANSYS Element

Concrete Solid65
Steel Plates and Supports Solid45
Steel Reinforcement Link8

Figure 4.Different type of crack observed during test of

the beam

Figure 6. Solid65 Element, (ANSYS, SAS 2005)

Figure 5.Load Vs Deflection for the Test Beams

                                                                          118101-4747 IJET-IJENS © February 2011 IJENS I J E N S 

 International Journal of Engineering & Technology IJET-IJENS Vol: 11 No: 01 191

Figure 7. Solid45 Element (ANSYS, SAS 2005)

2687.645
Point 3

0.0032

0.0036

0.003
3000

3000

3315.068
0.00374
Point 4

0.0044

0.004
3500

3500
0.004975

3779.774
Point 5

0.0056

0.005
4000

4000

4095.91
Point 6

0.0056

0.0066

0.006
4200

4200
Figure 8.Link8 Element (ANSYS, SAS 2005)

4287.251
0.00633
Point 7

0.0076

0.007
4300

4300
Table 5. Real Constants for Calibration Model

Point 8

0.0074

0.0088

4380.1
Cross-sectional

0.008
4422

4422
Element Type
Area (in2)
Real Constant 1 Solid 65 0.12

0.0088

4400
Real Constant 2 Link 8 0.12

Concrete
Table 6. Material Properties for Calibration Model Shear transfer coefficient for
0.3
open crack.
Shear transfer coefficient for
Element Type

1.00
open crack.
Material

Number
Model

Material Properties Uniaxial tensile cracking

499
stress.
Uniaxial crushing stress
4422
(positive).
Linear Isotropic Linear Isotropic
Solid45

MacGregor EX 29,000,000 psi

Average- 2
Average-1 Nonlinear PRXY 0.30
2
model
1250000 1000000 1000000 Linear Isotropic
EX
psi psi psi EX 29,000,000 psi
PRXY 0.15 0.15 0.15 PRXY 0.30
Link8

Multilinear Isotropic
MacGregor 3 Bilinear Isotropic
Lab Test-1 Lab Test-2 Yield Stress 41,500 psi
Nonlinear
(Average-1) (Average-2) Tangent
model
modulus of 2,900 psi
Strain (in./in.)

Strain (in./in.)

Strain (in./in.)
Solid65

elasticity
Stress (psi)

Stress (psi)

Stress (psi)

1
0.0013266
Point 1

0.0016

1326.6
0.002
2000

2000

1901.768
Point 2

0.0024

0.0028

0.002
2500

2500

                                                                          118101-4747 IJET-IJENS © February 2011 IJENS I J E N S 

 International Journal of Engineering & Technology IJET-IJENS Vol: 11 No: 01 192

(a) All these analytical beams were flexure control doubly

reinforced concrete beam and support condition is simply
supported.
Table 7. Specification for the analytical beams

Cross sections of all beams were 10in. 15in. and length of

all analytical beams was 15ft.
Effective depth, d=11.25” and d’=2.5”
Reinforcement
f ’c (psi) f y (psi) ρ
ratio
Under 4000 60000 0.016533
Balanced 4000 60000 0.028900
Over 4000 60000 0.042133

Table 8. Material properties for the analytical beams

(b)
Figure 9. (a) and (b). Volumes Created in ANSYS Material
and Mesh of the Concrete, Steel Plate, Steel Support, Element
Model Material Properties
and reinforcement. Type
Number
N.B. Comparison of results was carried out with the
Linear Isotropic
beam-3 which is simulated in ANSYS with average
data-2 since it was best among others. MacGregor Nonlinear
model
EX 3605000 psi
PRXY 0.2
Multilinear Isotropic
MacGregor Nonlinear model*

Strain
Stress (psi)
(in./in.)
Point1 0.000333 1200.5
Point2 0.0004 1396.7
Point3 0.0008 2552.5
Point4 0.0012 3347.8
1 Solid65 Point5 0.0016 3796.1
Figure 10.Boundary Conditions for Planes of Point6 0.002 3979.9
Symmetry
Point7 0.00222 4000
Point8 0.003 4000
Concrete
Shear transfer
coefficient for 0.35
open crack.
Shear transfer
coefficient for 1.00
open crack.
Uniaxial tensile
474.34
cracking stress.
Uniaxial crushing
4000
stress (positive).

Figure 11.Boundary Condition for Support Material properties of Solid45 and Link8 elements are same
as before except yield stress of Solid65 is 60000 psi.
B. For Analytical Investigation

                                                                          118101-4747 IJET-IJENS © February 2011 IJENS I J E N S 

 International Journal of Engineering & Technology IJET-IJENS Vol: 11 No: 01 193

Figure 13. 1st Crack of the Concrete Model at 2701.48 lb load

Figure 12. Typical reinforcement details of the analytical

beams (Quarter)

Table 9. Reinforcement specification for the analytical beams

Reinforcement
Bottom Shear
ratio Top bar
bar reinforcement

Under 2 #5bar 2 #5bar #3 bar @ 5” C/C

Balanced 2 #7bar 4 #7bar #4 bar @ 5” C/C

Over 2 #8bar 4 #8bar #4 bar @ 5” C/C Figure 14. Cracking of the Concrete Model at 3698.4 lb

III. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

A. For experimental and analytical investigation

Table 10. Deflection and Stress Comparisons at First Cracking
tension fiber

stress

Load at first
cracking (lb)
Reinforcing
stress (psi)

Centerline
deflection
Extreme

Model
(psi)
steel

(in.)

Manual
513.912 6626.82 0.034126 2564.57
calculation
ANSYS 520.15 6908 0.03200 2701.48 Figure 15. Cracking of the Concrete Model at 6333.6 lb
Lab test ------* ------* 0.065 2633.00

* means these value couldn’t possible to taken from test

beam due lack of strain gauge during experiment. Here
stress values were calculated and taken at first crack
location. Table 11 shows the first crack location.

Table 11. Location Comparisons at First Cracking

Location from Load Ratio of
First crack
support (in.) ( lb ) total length
Experimental 17.75 2633 0.4326L
ANSYS 16.99 2702 0.4144L

                                                                          118101-4747 IJET-IJENS © February 2011 IJENS I J E N S 

 International Journal of Engineering & Technology IJET-IJENS Vol: 11 No: 01 194

(a) Figure 18. Load vs. Deflection Curve Comparison of

ANSYS and Laboratory test results

(b)
Figure 16 (a) and (b). Yielding (41500 psi) of steel at Figure19. Comparison of crack pattern in test beam and ANSYS
5603.6 lb load and respective concrete stress in this
section is 1986 psi<concrete cylinder strength 4422 B. For analytical investigation
psi.
Table 13. Deflection and Stress Comparisons at First Cracking
and Ultimate load for the analytical beam

fiber stress

Centerline deflection (in.)

Load at first cracking (lb)

Extreme
concrete

Reinforcing steel stress

(psi)
Analytical

(ANSYS)

Ultimate
load (lb)
Model

(psi)
Compressive
Tensile
reinforced

0.067581

0.93336
Figure 17. Failure of the Concrete Beam
496.76

3326.8
Under

60004

24248
3277

7854
Table 12. Deflections of Test vs. Finite Element Model
At Ultimate Load
Centerline
condition

0.066749
Balanced

483.42

4217.5

Beam Load (lb)

60003

40128
1.007
3021

8315
deflection (in.)
Experiment (B-3) 5250 0.2402
ANSYS 6690.4 0.374839
0.7440713
reinforced

0.065772
490.781

8833.6
45759

39065
4053

2960
Over

Table 14. Observations at First Cracking

First crack Location Location in

Load
for steel ratio from support fraction of total
( lb )
(ANSYS) (in.) length
Under
77.5 7854 0.4306L
reinforced
Balanced
82.5 8315 0.4583L
condition
Over
80.0 8833.6 0.4444L
reinforced

                                                                          118101-4747 IJET-IJENS © February 2011 IJENS I J E N S 

 International Journal of Engineering & Technology IJET-IJENS Vol: 11 No: 01 195

reinforced since the yielding of deformed bar initiated

before the concrete reached its compressive strength
capacity (Figure 10).
(4) The first flexural cracking of experimental beam was
occurred 2.75” from the beam centerline, which was
3.51” in the ANSYS, SAS 2005. But theoretically this
first crack should occur in the bottom face of the beam
centerline. From experimental point of view, it was
impossible to find out the causes of this variation in
location of crack formation. Rather in the model
generated by ANSYS it was well observed that
principal tensile stress was developed earlier at that
location mentioned bellow (Figure 18).

Figure 20. Applied load vs. beam centerline

deflection for the analytical beam at different
reinforcement ratio

IV. CONCLUSIONS

A. For the experimental and analytical Figure 21. Contour plot of principal stress
beams
The following conclusions can be stated based on the
evaluation of the analyses of the calibration model. B. For the analytical beam
(1) Deflections and stresses at the centerline along
with initial and progressive cracking of the finite From the analytical investigation it was observed
element model compare well to experimental that under reinforced ratio is the best type of
data obtained from a reinforced concrete beam. reinforcement ratio among the others since it
Though some variation was observed in shows greatest warning zone (Figure14) before
deflection causes due to the following constraints failure. Where warning zone for balanced
during test- condition and over reinforcement ratios were
 Concrete stress-strain data in tests of 81.52% and 28.77% of under reinforcement
condition respectively.
cylinder was corrected before input in
the ANSYS data table because the data Maximum load carrying capacity at 1st cracking
was collected manually. And also was observed for over reinforced beam but on the
Poisson’s ratio was not possible to other it was the balanced condition beam at
determine. ultimate load. Maximum deflection at failure was
 Support condition was not truly hinge in also observed for the beam that balanced
reinforced.
one end for this reason during
increasing load support sliding was V. REFERENCES
observed.
(2) The failure mechanism of a reinforced concrete 1. SAS (2005) ANSYS 10.0 Finite Element Analysis
beam is modeled quite well using FEA and the System, SAS IP, Inc.
failure load predicted is very close to the failure 2. Anthony J. Wolanski, B.S. (2004) “Flexural
load measured during experimental testing. Behavior of Reinforced and Prestressed Concrete
(3) The analytical beam that was simulated with Beams Using Finite Element Analysis”, Master’s
under reinforced test beam data is also under Thesis, Marquette University, Milwaukee,
Wisconsin.

                                                                          118101-4747 IJET-IJENS © February 2011 IJENS I J E N S 

 International Journal of Engineering & Technology IJET-IJENS Vol: 11 No: 01 196

3. Nilson, A. H., Darwin, D., and Dolan C.

W.,Edition, (2006), “Design of Concrete
Structure”, McGraw-Hill Education(Asia),
Singapore.
4. Kachlakev, D., PhD., Miller, T, PhD, P Yim, S,
PhD, PE; Chansawat, K. and Potisuk, T., ( 2001)
“Finite Element Modeling of Reinforced Concrete
Structures Strengthened with FRP Laminates”,
Oregon Department of Transportation, Research
Group.
5. Vazirani, V.N.; Ratwani, M.M., (1995) “ Concrete
Structures” , Khanna Publishers, Delhi.
6. Murdock, L. J., Brook, K. M. and Dewar, J. D.,
“Concrete: Materials and Practice”, 6th Edition,
Edward Arnold, London, 1991
7. American Concrete Institute, “Material and
General Properties of Concrete,” ACI Manual of
Concrete Practice, Part 1, 1996
8. Nakasone, Y.; Yoshimoto, S.; Stolarski, T. A.,
2006, “ENGINEERING ANALYSIS WITH ANSYS
SOFTWARE”, ELSEVIER, 1st Published.
9. Hossain. Nadim, M, 1998, “Structural Concrete
Theory & Design”, Addison-Wesley Publishing
Company.

                                                                          118101-4747 IJET-IJENS © February 2011 IJENS I J E N S